Kedarnath vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr

Karnataka High Court

Kedarnath vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 16 May, 2024

                                                 -1-
                                                        NC: 2024:KHC-K:3284
                                                        CRL.A No. 200071 of 2024




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                         KALABURAGI BENCH

                                DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MAY, 2024

                                               BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200071 OF 2024 (U/S 14 (A))
                      BETWEEN:

                      KEDARNATH S/O VEERABHADRAYYA SWAMY,
                      AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
                      R/O BULLAPUR VILLAGE,
                      TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR.
                                                                    ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR AND
                       SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, ADVOCATES)
                      AND:

                      1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                            THROUGH SHO, IDAPANUR P.S.,
                            RAICHUR,
                            REP. BY ADDL. SPP, HCK,
Digitally signed by         KALABURAGI-585102.
KHAJAAMEEN L
MALAGHAN
                      2.    K. RAMANNA NAYAK S/O K. BHEEMAYYA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                    AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
KARNATAKA                   R/O BULLAPUR VILLAGE,
                            TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
                                                              ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI RAJKUMAR A. KORWAR, HCGP FOR R1;
                       R2 SERVED)

                           THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)
                      OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
                      ORDER DATED 18.12.2023, PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL
                      DISTRICT   AND   SESSIONS    JUDGE   AT   RAICHUR   IN
                      CRL.MISC.NO.1066/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO
                             -2-
                                   NC: 2024:KHC-K:3284
                                   CRL.A No. 200071 of 2024




ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL APPEAL BY GRANTING BAIL AND
TO RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN (CRIME NO.40/2023)
IDAPANUR P.S. YERAGERA CIRCLE, RAICHUR DIST. FOR AN
OFFENCE U/S. 302, 114, 109 AND SEC. 3(1)(R)(S)(W-1),
3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. PREVENTION OF ATROCITY (AMENDED ) ACT,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE RAICHUR.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

Respondent No.2 served and unrepresented.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.12.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1066/2023 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, wherein the bail application filed by the appellant/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, rejected by the learned Sessions Judge.

3. The appellant is accused No.2 in Crime No.40/2023 of Idapanur Police Station, Yeragera Circle, Raichur and charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 109 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste -3- NC: 2024:KHC-K:3284 CRL.A No. 200071 of 2024 and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014.

4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, the daughter of the complainant was given in marriage to accused No.1. Prior to the date of the incident, out of their wedlock they have begotten two children. It is the further case of the prosecution that, appellant/accused No.2 had illicit affair with the wife of accused No.1 i.e. the deceased- T. Sharada and he used to visit the house of accused No.1 in his absence. The said aspect came to know to accused No.1 and his brother. As such, the accused No.1 hatched conspiracy to commit the murder of his wife - T. Sharada. This being the case, on 11.07.2023 in the morning hours when accused No.1 went to his land and at about 11.30 a.m. when he was returning to his house, he saw accused No.2 i.e., the appellant herein was taking with his wife - T. Sharada. By noticing the same, the accused No.1 got enraged and tried to assault accused No.2 i.e., appellant herein with an axe, at that time, accused No.2 escaped by -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:3284 CRL.A No. 200071 of 2024 abusing accused No.1 that his wife i.e., deceased called him to the house, as such, he came there and for that he has to assault his wife by saying so, he escaped from the spot. Hence, accused No.1 assaulted his wife with axe and committed the murder. Subsequently, father of the complainant i.e., respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before the respondent - Police against accused No.1 and appellant herein. Thereafter, respondent-Police investigated the matter and arrested the appellant/ accused on 24.07.2023 and produced him before the Special Court and remanded to judicial custody.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant filed bail application before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Raichur in Crl.Misc. No.1066/2023 along with accused No.1 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.12.2023. Hence, the appellant preferred this appeal for grant of bail.

6. Heard Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajkumar A. Korwar, the learned -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:3284 CRL.A No. 200071 of 2024 HCGP for the respondent No.1-State. Though notice was served to respondent No.2 but remained unrepresented.

7. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that on perusal of the complaint and other charge-sheet materials, absolutely there is no such overt act attributes against the appellant being accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. He further contends that accused No.1 assaulted his wife with an axe and committed her murder The only allegation against the appellant is that he abused accused No.1 and instigated him to commit the murder of his wife by mentioning the caste of accused No.1. According to the learned counsel for the appellant even the provision of SC/ST Act also does not attract in this case for the reason that the incident was caused inside the house of accused No.1 and deceased, as such, even the allegation pleaded accepted at its face value for the sake of argument, the words uttered by appellant were not in the public view. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. -6-

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3284 CRL.A No. 200071 of 2024

8. Per contra, Sri Rajkumar A.Korwar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State vehemently contends that the appellant is the root cause to commit the murder of the deceased and he had an illicit affair with the deceased. The said aspect was known to accused No.1 - the husband of the deceased so also her brother and the appellant/accused No.2 was warned to that effect, in spite of that he continued his activities. Further, on the fateful day accused No.2 was very much present in the house of accused No.1 and he only instigated accused No.1 to commit the murder. Neverthless he also abused accused No.1 by mentioning the caste on him. Hence, there is a prima facie case made against appellant/accused No.2 herein. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

9. Having heard both the parties and also having perused the documents produced before this Court, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, admittedly the accused No.1 caused the murder of his wife -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:3284 CRL.A No. 200071 of 2024 deceased by assaulting her with an axe. The only allegation against the appellant/accused No.2 is that he instigated accused No.1 by saying that "his wife only called him", as such, he had been to the house and therefore accused No.1 has to commit the murder of his wife. Though CW.12 is cited as an eyewitness to the incident, he also categorically stated that by abusing accused No.1 as above, the appellant/accused No.2 ran out from the house, subsequently accused No.1 committed the murder of deceased.

10. In such circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, since the investigation is completed and charge-sheet has already been filed by the respondent/police, the custodial detention of the appellant/accused No.2 does not call for. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that appellant/accused No.2 may be admitted on bail. Accordingly, I pass the following :

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3284 CRL.A No. 200071 of 2024 ORDER Appeal is hereby allowed.

The appellant/accused No.2 is directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No.40/2023 of Indapanur Police Station, Yeragera Circle, Raichur District pending on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Jude, Raichur for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 109 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014, subject to the following conditions :

i) The appellant shall execute personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Judge;

ii) Appellant/accused No.2 shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3284 CRL.A No. 200071 of 2024

iii) He shall appear before the trial court on all dates of hearing without fail.

iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.

v) Violation of any of these conditions enables the complainant to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT:PK